Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, California, 37514-37517 [2016-13781]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37514
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Long Creek and Sloop Channel are
transited by commercial fishing and
recreational vessel traffic.
Under this temporary deviation, the
Loop Parkway and the Meadowbrook
State Parkway Bridges may remain in
the closed position between 9:30 p.m.
and 11:59 p.m. on June 25, 2016 (rain
date: June 26, 2016 between 9:30 p.m.
and 11:59 p.m.).
Vessels able to pass under the bridge
in the closed position may do so at
anytime. The bridges will not be able to
open for emergencies and there are no
immediate alternate routes for vessels to
pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the
users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners
of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessels can arrange
their transits to minimize any impact
caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: June 6, 2016.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–13692 Filed 6–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0484]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle
of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, Ocean City,
MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the US 50 (Harry
W. Kelly Memorial) Bridge across the
Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, mile 0.5,
at Ocean City, MD. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate the increased
vehicular traffic of the 2016 Ocean City
Air Show. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position.
DATES: The deviation is effective from
3:55 p.m. on Saturday June 18, 2016, to
4:55 p.m. Sunday June 19, 2016.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Jun 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
The docket for this
deviation, [USCG–2016–0484] is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Type the docket number in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’.
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions on this temporary
deviation, call or email Mr. Michael
Thorogood, Bridge Administration
Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard,
telephone 757–398–6557, email
Michael.R.Thorogood@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Town
of Ocean City, on behalf of the Maryland
State Highway Administration, who
owns the US 50 (Harry W. Kelly
Memorial) Bridge, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current
operating regulations set out in 33 CFR
117.559, to accommodate increased
vehicular traffic of the 2016 Ocean City
Air Show.
Under this temporary deviation, the
bridge will be closed-to-navigation from
3:55 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. on June 18, 2016,
and from 3:55 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. on June
19, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule
bridge and has a vertical clearance in
the closed-to-navigation position of 13
feet above mean high water.
The Isle of Wight (Sinetuxent) Bay is
used by a variety of vessels including
small fishing vessels and recreational
vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully
considered the nature and volume of
vessel traffic on the waterway in
publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the
bridge in the closed position may do so
at anytime. The bridge will be able to
open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform
the users of the waterway through our
Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to
Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel
operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: June 7, 2016.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016–13777 Filed 6–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0330]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal
Concord (MOTCO); Concord, California
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is revising
the existing conditional security zone
regulation currently in place in the
navigable waters of Suisun Bay,
California, near Concord, California
around each of the three piers at the
Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO), California (formerly United
States Naval Weapons Center Concord,
California). This action is intended to
clarify responsibilities and authorities
for enforcement of the security zone.
DATES: This rule is effective from July
11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015–
0330 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector
San Francisco, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone (415) 399–7443, email D11PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal Concord
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
On August 27, 1996, the Department
of the Army, Corps of Engineers
published a final rule in the Federal
Register (61 FR 43969) establishing a
restricted area 1 around the MOTCO
1 A ‘‘restricted area’’ is defined in § 334.2 as a
defined water area for the purpose of prohibiting or
limiting public access to the area that generally
provides security for Government property and/or
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
piers (33 CFR 334.1110). Although the
restricted area prohibits public access to
the piers at all times, it lacks a
conditional boundary extension to be
enforced during the presence of
munitions laden vessels and/or military
onload/offload activities. Prior to
January 24, 2005, the Coast Guard
would address this lack of a conditional
boundary by publishing a temporary
security zone of sufficient size in the
area for each operation at MOTCO (see
e.g., 68 FR 33382).
On January 24, 2005, to address this
issue on a more permanent basis, the
Coast Guard published a final rule in
the Federal Register (70 FR 3299)
establishing a conditional 500-yard
security zone around MOTCO’s piers to
be enforced during military onload/
offload operations (33 CFR 165.1199).
The security zone provides necessary
security for military operations by
providing a standoff distance for blast
and collision, a surveillance and
detection perimeter, and a margin of
response time for security personnel.
On July 1, 2015, the Coast Guard
published a NPRM (80 FR 48787), with
proposed changes to clarify
responsibilities and authorities for
enforcement of the security zone. There
we stated why we issued the NPRM,
and invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to this security
zone. During the comment period that
ended on September 14, 2015, we
received 0 comments.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
The legal basis for this rule is 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard
to establish security zones. This
authority is separate from the
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers authority to provide
appropriate security in defense of their
waterfront facilities and for vessels
moored thereto in accordance with the
restricted area in 33 CFR 334.1110.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
advance the Coast Guard’s efforts to
thwart potential terrorist activity
through security measures on U.S. ports
and waterways.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes,
and the Rule
The current regulation at § 165.1199
contains several items that are the
subject of the revisions in this FR. The
protection to the public from the risks of damage
or injury arising from the Government’s use of that
area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Jun 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
revisions to § 165.1199 will clarify the
regulations in a concise, understandable
format.
First, the Coast Guard revises
§ 165.1199(c) by clarifying the Coast
Guard’s enforcement role during active
loading operations, and the ability of the
COTP to designate other representatives
as having authority to enforce the
security zone. The Coast Guard
proposes to replace the existing term
‘‘patrol personnel,’’ in favor of a more
appropriate term, ‘‘designated
representative,’’ which includes federal,
state and local officials designated by
the COTP. This revision clarifies that
the COTP may designate law
enforcement officials other than Coast
Guard personnel to patrol and enforce
the security zone.
The Coast Guard also revises the
security zone so that it is enforceable at
any time a vessel loaded with munitions
is present at a pier (in addition to during
military onload/offload operations).
Without this revision, the existing
security zone is enforceable during
military onload or offload operations
only.
Additionally, the Coast Guard
proposes to remove the existing
provision regarding ‘‘Local Notice to
Mariners’’ as a means of notifying the
public that the security zone will be
enforced. The security concern related
to providing advance notification of the
presence of an explosive load at a
military base outweighs the benefit of
advance notice of the security zone.
Instead, the Coast Guard would notify
the public of security zone enforcement
(and suspensions of enforcement) via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or
actual notice on-scene during military
onloads or offloads. This revision would
better align the notification method of
this security zone with the notification
method for the existing safety zone in
the area (see § 165.1198).
No changes in the regulatory text of
the rule in the NPRM.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or
executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37515
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
it has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
Security zone enforcement would be
limited in duration, and limited to a
narrowly tailored geographic area. In
addition, although this rule would
restrict access to the waters
encompassed by the security zone, the
effect of this rule would not be
significant because the local waterway
users will be notified via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice
on-scene during military onloads or
offloads. The entities most likely to be
affected are waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. The
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard received 0 comments
from the Small Business Administration
on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This rule may affect owners and
operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities and
sightseeing. The security zone would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. The security
zone would be activated, and thus
subject to patrol and enforcement, for a
limited duration. When the security
zone is activated, vessel traffic would be
directed to pass safety around the
security zone. The maritime public
would be advised when transiting near
the activated zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this rule. If the rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
37516
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in
E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Jun 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a
security zone of limited size and
duration. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 165.1199 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean
Terminal Concord (MOTCO), Concord,
California.
(a) Location. The security zone(s)
reside(s) within the navigable waters of
Suisun Bay, California, extending from
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the surface to the sea floor, within 500
yards of the three Military Ocean
Terminal Concord (MOTCO) piers in
Concord, California.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, ‘‘designated representative’’
means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer or any Federal,
state, or local law enforcement officer
who has been designated by the Captain
of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to act
on the COTP’s behalf. The COTP’s
representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel,
a Federal, state, or local law
enforcement vessel, or a location on
shore.
(c) Regulations. (1) The security
zone(s) described in paragraph (a) of
this section will be in force during
active military onloading and/or
offloading operations and at any time a
vessel loaded with munitions is present
at a pier.
(2) When one or more piers are
involved in onload or offload operations
at the same time, there will be a 500yard security zone for each involved
pier.
(3) Under the general regulations in
subpart D of this part, entry into,
transiting or anchoring within the
security zone(s) described in paragraph
(a) of this section is prohibited during
times of enforcement unless authorized
by the COTP or a designated
representative.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the security zone(s)
during times of enforcement must
contact the COTP or a designated
representative on VHF–16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone (415) 399–3547 to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in
the security zone(s) must comply with
all directions given to them by the
COTP or a designated representative.
(5) Upon being hailed by the COTP or
designated representative by siren,
radio, flashing light, or other means, the
operator of a vessel approaching the
security zone(s) must proceed as
directed to avoid entering the security
zone(s).
(d) Notice of enforcement or
suspension of enforcement of security
zone(s). During periods that one or more
security zones are enforced, the COTP
or a designated representative will issue
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or
notify mariners via actual notice onscene. In addition, COTP maintains a
telephone line that is maintained 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. The public
can contact COTP at (415) 399–3547 to
obtain information concerning
enforcement of this section. When the
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
security zones are no longer needed, the
COTP or designated representative will
cease enforcement of the security zones.
Upon suspension of enforcement, all
persons and vessels are granted general
permissions to enter, move within, and
exit the security zones, but should
remain cognizant of the applicable
restricted area designated in 33 CFR
334.1110.
Dated: May 20, 2016.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016–13781 Filed 6–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0009; EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0314; FRL–9946–80–Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Illinois; NAAQS
Updates
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving revised rules
submitted by the State of Illinois as
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions. The submitted rules update
Illinois’ ambient air quality standards to
include the 2012 primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), add
EPA-promulgated monitoring methods,
and address the ‘‘sunset provisions’’ in
our regulations. In addition, the revised
rules contain the timing requirements
for the ‘‘flagging of exceptional events’’
and the submitting of documentation
supporting the determination of
exceptional events for the 2012 primary
annual PM2.5 standard.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective August 9, 2016, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by July 11,
2016. If adverse comments are received
by EPA, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0009 or EPA–R05–OAR–
2015–0314 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Jun 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Doty, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–6057, Doty.Edward@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. When and why did the State make these
submittals?
II. What are the State rule revisions?
A. April 23, 2015, Submittal—Rule Revision
Group R14–06
B. December 18, 2014, Submittal—Rule
Revision Group R14–17
III. Did the State hold public hearings for
these submittals?
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittals?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. When and why did the State make
these submittals?
Section 109 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires EPA to establish
national primary (protective of human
health) and secondary (protective of
human welfare) air quality standards for
pollutants for which air quality criteria
have been issued under Section 108 of
the CAA (the criteria pollutants 1).
1 The criteria pollutants are ozone (O ), nitrogen
3
oxides (represented by nitrogen dioxide (NO2)),
sulfur oxides (represented by sulfur dioxide (SO2)),
carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37517
Individually and collectively these
standards are referred to as NAAQS.
Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires
EPA to review, and if necessary, based
on accumulated health and welfare data,
to revise each NAAQS every five years.
If a NAAQS is revised, states whose
rules include state air quality standards
may revise their rules to address the
revised NAAQS and associated
monitoring requirements, and submit
them to EPA as SIP revision requests.
See, e.g., 415 ILCS 5/10(H).
On December 18, 2014, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted to EPA for approval as
SIP revisions updates to the methods
used by Illinois to monitor air quality
for several NAAQS. These updates
correspond to EPA’s revised monitoring
methods promulgated during the period
of July 1, 2013, through December 31,
2013. The Illinois Pollution Control
Board (IPCB) adopted these rule
revisions on June 5, 2014, as rule
revision group R14–17.
On April 23, 2015, IEPA submitted to
EPA for approval as SIP revisions an
additional update to include the 2012
primary annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and a provision incorporating
by reference EPA-promulgated
monitoring methods. These rule updates
correspond to the NAAQS and
monitoring methods promulgated by
EPA during the period of January 1,
2013, through June 30, 2013, and on
July 3, 2013, and August 5, 2013. This
state submittal also addressed the
‘‘sunset provisions’’ of 40 CFR 50.4(e),
finding that the 1971 NAAQS for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) no longer applies to the
Lemont and Pekin areas in Illinois.
Finally, the revised rules contain the
timing requirements for the ‘‘flagging of
exceptional events’’ and the submitting
of documentation supporting the
determination of exceptional events for
the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard.
The IPCB adopted these rule revisions
on September 5, 2013, as rule revision
group R14–6.
II. What are the State rule revisions?
A. April 23, 2015, Submittal—Rule
Revision Group R14–06
The rule revisions contained in the
April 23, 2015 submittal are
summarized below.
(represented by total suspended particulates (TSP),
particulates (PM10), and fine particulates (PM2.5)),
and lead (Pb). Note that Illinois also has air quality
standard and monitoring rules for ‘‘coarse
particulate matter’’ (PM2.5–10), although this is not
a criteria pollutant and is generally considered to
be included in PM10.
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37514-37517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13781]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2015-0330]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord,
California
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the existing conditional security
zone regulation currently in place in the navigable waters of Suisun
Bay, California, near Concord, California around each of the three
piers at the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California
(formerly United States Naval Weapons Center Concord, California). This
action is intended to clarify responsibilities and authorities for
enforcement of the security zone.
DATES: This rule is effective from July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0330 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399-7443, email D11-PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal Concord
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
On August 27, 1996, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
published a final rule in the Federal Register (61 FR 43969)
establishing a restricted area \1\ around the MOTCO
[[Page 37515]]
piers (33 CFR 334.1110). Although the restricted area prohibits public
access to the piers at all times, it lacks a conditional boundary
extension to be enforced during the presence of munitions laden vessels
and/or military onload/offload activities. Prior to January 24, 2005,
the Coast Guard would address this lack of a conditional boundary by
publishing a temporary security zone of sufficient size in the area for
each operation at MOTCO (see e.g., 68 FR 33382).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``restricted area'' is defined in Sec. 334.2 as a defined
water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access
to the area that generally provides security for Government property
and/or protection to the public from the risks of damage or injury
arising from the Government's use of that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 24, 2005, to address this issue on a more permanent
basis, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register
(70 FR 3299) establishing a conditional 500-yard security zone around
MOTCO's piers to be enforced during military onload/offload operations
(33 CFR 165.1199). The security zone provides necessary security for
military operations by providing a standoff distance for blast and
collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of
response time for security personnel.
On July 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a NPRM (80 FR 48787),
with proposed changes to clarify responsibilities and authorities for
enforcement of the security zone. There we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this security zone. During the comment period that ended on September
14, 2015, we received 0 comments.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
establish security zones. This authority is separate from the
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers authority to provide
appropriate security in defense of their waterfront facilities and for
vessels moored thereto in accordance with the restricted area in 33 CFR
334.1110.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to advance the Coast Guard's
efforts to thwart potential terrorist activity through security
measures on U.S. ports and waterways.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule
The current regulation at Sec. 165.1199 contains several items
that are the subject of the revisions in this FR. The revisions to
Sec. 165.1199 will clarify the regulations in a concise,
understandable format.
First, the Coast Guard revises Sec. 165.1199(c) by clarifying the
Coast Guard's enforcement role during active loading operations, and
the ability of the COTP to designate other representatives as having
authority to enforce the security zone. The Coast Guard proposes to
replace the existing term ``patrol personnel,'' in favor of a more
appropriate term, ``designated representative,'' which includes
federal, state and local officials designated by the COTP. This
revision clarifies that the COTP may designate law enforcement
officials other than Coast Guard personnel to patrol and enforce the
security zone.
The Coast Guard also revises the security zone so that it is
enforceable at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present at a
pier (in addition to during military onload/offload operations).
Without this revision, the existing security zone is enforceable during
military onload or offload operations only.
Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the existing
provision regarding ``Local Notice to Mariners'' as a means of
notifying the public that the security zone will be enforced. The
security concern related to providing advance notification of the
presence of an explosive load at a military base outweighs the benefit
of advance notice of the security zone. Instead, the Coast Guard would
notify the public of security zone enforcement (and suspensions of
enforcement) via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-
scene during military onloads or offloads. This revision would better
align the notification method of this security zone with the
notification method for the existing safety zone in the area (see Sec.
165.1198).
No changes in the regulatory text of the rule in the NPRM.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Security zone enforcement would be limited in duration, and limited
to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule
would restrict access to the waters encompassed by the security zone,
the effect of this rule would not be significant because the local
waterway users will be notified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or
actual notice on-scene during military onloads or offloads. The
entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing. The security zone would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. The security zone would be activated, and
thus subject to patrol and enforcement, for a limited duration. When
the security zone is activated, vessel traffic would be directed to
pass safety around the security zone. The maritime public would be
advised when transiting near the activated zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
[[Page 37516]]
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a security zone of limited size and duration. This rule
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 165.1199 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO), Concord, California.
(a) Location. The security zone(s) reside(s) within the navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, California, extending from the surface to the sea
floor, within 500 yards of the three Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO) piers in Concord, California.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has
been designated by the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to act
on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a Federal, state, or local law
enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.
(c) Regulations. (1) The security zone(s) described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be in force during active military onloading
and/or offloading operations and at any time a vessel loaded with
munitions is present at a pier.
(2) When one or more piers are involved in onload or offload
operations at the same time, there will be a 500-yard security zone for
each involved pier.
(3) Under the general regulations in subpart D of this part, entry
into, transiting or anchoring within the security zone(s) described in
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited during times of enforcement
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone(s) during times of enforcement must contact the COTP or a
designated representative on VHF-16 or through the 24-hour Command
Center at telephone (415) 399-3547 to obtain permission to do so.
Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the security
zone(s) must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a
designated representative.
(5) Upon being hailed by the COTP or designated representative by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
approaching the security zone(s) must proceed as directed to avoid
entering the security zone(s).
(d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security
zone(s). During periods that one or more security zones are enforced,
the COTP or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners and/or notify mariners via actual notice on-scene. In
addition, COTP maintains a telephone line that is maintained 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. The public can contact COTP at (415) 399-3547 to
obtain information concerning enforcement of this section. When the
[[Page 37517]]
security zones are no longer needed, the COTP or designated
representative will cease enforcement of the security zones. Upon
suspension of enforcement, all persons and vessels are granted general
permissions to enter, move within, and exit the security zones, but
should remain cognizant of the applicable restricted area designated in
33 CFR 334.1110.
Dated: May 20, 2016.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016-13781 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
